Rights violated after radiologist failed to detect cancer – HDC

A woman in her 60s died following the failure of a radiologist to detect cancer on a CT scan

Photo: 123RF

An Assistant Commissioner for Health and Disability, Rose Wall, said in a report today that the anonymous radiologist has violated patients' rights.

She said that the woman, who had a history of abdominal pain, was referred by her family doctor for a CT scan in a public hospital in 2016.

The analysis was performed and a radiologist experienced and anonymous read the report and reported it remotely the same day. He noted "some pancreatic atrophy" but did not detect any significant abnormalities.

However, the woman, referred to as "Mrs. A" in the report, continued to experience fatigue and changes in weight and intestinal habits. As a result, his general practitioner referred him last February to a private gastroenterologist. He reviewed the 2016 analysis, saying "it was clear to me that there was obvious pancreatic cancer at that time, which was not identified in the report CT. "

Another analysis was done, revealing the "pancreatic head tumor with arterial and venous wrap … Extended involvement of lymph nodes and possible liver metastases. "

Ms. Wall stated that these results were referred by the district health board, which is not named, for confirmation by biopsy, and added that" Ms. A ", who is was a complaint to the Commissioner of Health and Disability, had since died.

The diagnostic radiologist, "Dr. B", reviewed the initial analysis and told Ms. Wall that "in retrospect

"If I had enjoyed these results, I would have recommended a follow-up medical examination," he said.

He said that it was "a misperception" on his part. , an independent radiologist, Brendan Murray, informed Ms. Wall that the anomaly "would normally have been reported."

He said: "Even without a favorable clinical history, the presence of a poorly defined infiltrated pancreatic mass [measuring 35 mm by 30mm] is unequivocal."

Dr. Murray added that the failure of " Dr. B "was significant and that" Dr. B "noted pancreatic atrophy, or injury, but that she failed to question the significance of the feature or to analyze the discovery. B "worked to not violate the rights of patients.

" Dr. B "provided a written apology to the family of" Mrs. A. "The radiology department where he worked, which is not appointed, was asked to provide a progress report on the implementation of a peer verification system.